==+== ICSE 2023 Review Form ==-== DO NOT CHANGE LINES THAT START WITH "==+==" OR "==*==". ==-== For further guidance, or to upload this file when you are done, go to: ==-== https://icse2023.hotcrp.com/offline ==+== ===================================================================== ==+== Begin Review #223 ==+== Reviewer: Davide Di Ruscio ==+== Paper #223 ==-== Title: Qualitative Clustering of Software Repositories Based on ==-== Software Metrics ==+== Review Readiness ==-== Enter "Ready" if the review is ready for others to see: Ready ==*== Overall merit ==-== Please rate the overall quality of the manuscript. If you use (1) ==-== Reject or (4) Accept, then you are ready to argue against or in ==-== favor. Use (5) Strong accept if you want to nominate this as a ==-== distinguished paper ==-== Choices: ==-== 1. Reject ==-== 2. Weak reject ==-== 3. Weak accept ==-== 4. Accept ==-== 5. Strong accept (award quality) ==-== Enter the number of your choice: (Your choice here) ==*== Reviewer expertise ==-== Choices: ==-== X. I am an expert on this topic (know the related work well) ==-== Y. I am knowledgeable on this topic ==-== Z. I am an informed outsider ==-== Enter the letter of your choice: (Your choice here) ==*== Paper summary ==-== Please briefly summarize the paper in your own words, explaining ==-== to the authors how you understood the paper. ==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported. ==*== Strengths ==-== Please provide a short bullet-point list of the paper’s key ==-== strengths. ==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported. ==*== Weaknesses ==-== Please provide a short bullet-point list of the paper’s key ==-== weaknesses. ==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported. ==*== Artifacts assessment ==-== You have been designated as artifact checker for this paper. ==-== Please access the artifacts (if available) and briefly provide ==-== your assessment. ==-== You can complement the information provided here with further ==-== comments under **Comments for authors** when discussing the paper ==-== along the **Verifiability and Transparency** criterion. ==-== Choices: ==-== 1. The artifacts are unavailable while the authors declared their ==-== availability ==-== 2. The artifacts do not contain what is declared in the submission ==-== form and in the paper ==-== 3. The artifacts partially contain what is declared in the ==-== submission form and in the paper ==-== 4. The artifacts are in line with what is declared in the ==-== submission form and in the paper ==-== 5. Does not apply, the authors explained why artifacts were not ==-== provided ==-== Enter the number of your choice: (Your choice here) ==*== Comments for authors ==-== Please provide constructive feedback to the authors for justifying ==-== your score. Please consider the following five criteria, as listed ==-== in the ICSE 2023 Call for Papers and detailed in the ICSE 2023 ==-== Reviewer Guidelines, notably Section 6 "Reviewing". ==-== ==-== * **Soundness:** The extent to which the paper’s contributions ==-== and/or innovations address its research questions and are ==-== supported by rigorous application of appropriate research methods. ==-== * **Significance:** The extent to which the paper’s contributions ==-== can impact the field of software engineering, and under which ==-== assumptions (if any) ==-== * **Novelty:** The extent to which the contributions are ==-== sufficiently original with respect to the state-of-the-art ==-== * **Verifiability and Transparency:** The extent to which the ==-== paper includes sufficient information to understand how an ==-== innovation works; to understand how data was obtained, analyzed, ==-== and interpreted; and how the paper supports independent ==-== verification or replication of the paper’s claimed contributions. ==-== * **Presentation:** The extent to which the paper’s quality of ==-== writing meets the high standards of ICSE, including clear ==-== descriptions, as well as adequate use of the English language, ==-== absence of major ambiguity, clearly readable figures and tables, ==-== and adherence to the formatting instructions. ==-== ==-== Feel free to structure your review along these criteria. ==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported. ==*== Question for authors ==-== Please provide specific questions that *could affect your ==-== accept/reject decision or help support the paper*. If you have no ==-== such questions, please leave the form blank. ==-== Please number your questions: 1., 2., 3., ... starting with the ==-== most critical questions. Remember that the authors have limited ==-== space and must respond to all reviewers. ==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported. ==*== Comments on authors' response ==-== After the authors provide their response, please provide your ==-== comments on the authors' response, e.g., ==-== ==-== * which questions have been satisfactorily answered by the ==-== authors; and ==-== * which questions have not been satisfactorily answered by the ==-== authors (and why not) ==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported. ==*== Comments for PC ==-== (hidden from authors) ==-== Please use this field to convey any message to other reviewers or ==-== chairs, if you do not want it to be seen by the authors. ==-== If you update the review, please state here what changes you made. ==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported. ==+== Scratchpad (for unsaved private notes) ==+== End Review